finally, we are supportive of increasing the registration fee from its current low level to something higher. also the recommendations that i made says you consider how you will fund increase in complexity of administration, and given that it has to come from somewhere, and anticipates it so it does not have to come from someone else's budget. anyone else want to add on? in that regard, i would say if we need a motion, it would be a vote of support for the activities going on now, and a

voice of our support score the work you are doing on the implementation side during your -- implementation side. good parts i think it is appropriate to make a motion that the commission is providing this direction, and one other point, since one of the key points is job creation that they do also provide job creation, so i do not know if that is an additional you might want to add. >> i would add we are supportive of this effort, but we see if as a pro job measure and taxing

prosperity is a dark birds, and we should be taxing the outcome of prosperity, namely revenue of gross proceeds. let's tax the output side. >> i would like to add for the smallest businesses we should recommend not raising that any higher than 158 and perhaps phasing, because i know i can afford this, but there are some of this going to provide of hardship, and if we could have some time to phase out in, but would be very helpful rather than going to a much higher fees.

>> we might add to the consideration of a tier below that level, a smaller fee to apply to a certain class of businesses based on all lower level of gross receipts. >> we are talking about something silly all this time, but i am concern because all those half of city hall, so i just want to make sure small businesses do not give less with a bag in their hand. i am a small business owner superior -- a small-business owner. i do not want a deficit of four

people in my neighborhood. i am with you. somewhere down the line we pass the payroll tax. >> are you ready for me to give this a try? >> you can do that. >> and i have one question. if there is a direction of the gross receipts, with the modeling be a phased and with business registration fee as well? what were you thinking around that? >> it is an interesting question, because you would be paying the gross receipts tax

and a payroll tax, but we do not envision you paying two registration fees, so the question of when we switch you over away from the payroll one is an interesting question. we would probably want to do it in the last possible year. it is not a huge revenue. it is not something we thought about. certainly allowing a phase in is something we can accommodate in that process, but we would be open to ideas. >> i want to make a motion. i am going to make a motion but

the commission supports the gross receipts tax efforts, and i am going to get corrected on how i phrases. i am going to move the parties represent our support and direction to those receiving the gross tax implementation. >> i have support between 100,000 and 0.5 million of gross receipts, and exploring a dedicated allocation or recommending to policy makers say explore dedicated application to small business, while taking into consideration the ballot but also that they can do a policy matter, support an increase in business license

fee, but not to exceed $150, consider funding increase in the administration to make up for the increased administrative fees that may apply. we have notes of job creation and taxing the output verses the input, and my question whether or not it was part of the motion is a consideration of the smaller registration fee, and a phase in on business registration fee as they go op. >> do we have a second? >> second. >> roll call. >> on that motion? [calling votes]

commissioners, that motion passes, 6-0. >> thanks for your presentation, and thanks to the public for coming, as well. good >> next item. g>> item 7, discussion of possible action involving regional commuter benefit. explanatory document in your binder is a fact sheet provided by the sponsor, the bill text, along with a copy of a very similar local ordinance, and we have a presentation by a malaysiemily salgado.

>> thank you. is this ok? i am always told byron to lown. guerdon -- told i am too loud. i will be very brief and as the dead as you want me to be. this is straightforward. gobasically, in a couple of sentences, the premise around this is setting up a regional program, putting that in place for businesses of 50 or more to incentivize commuter benefits with a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. transportation is the largest contributor in california as a polluter, and state law requires we reduce those emissions by

2020, so what we have done is put in place a regional commuter benefit, and what this attempts to do is incentivize businesses to offer these to their employees and also increasing employees' savings by up to 40%, so we feel this is fiscally prudent in light of the mandate set is rapidly approaching and environmentally friendly. that is really the short of it. we have been approved by the chamber of commerce. we have recently gotten word of the union square will be supportive, although i need to confirm that. we have the support of the environment commission and some environmental groups, and i

would be happy to add to those if you want specifics. those are developments that are not on your fact sheet. i will be very brief, vicos there are questions you may or may not have in the information that is received. >> any questions, commissioner? >> can you tell us a little bit. it says there has been a great success with these ordinances in berkeley and richmond. can you give us a little bit of background on that? >> what we have seen is that there is an actual reduction in cost of small businesses, and there is an actual increase in

savings to employees, and the best way i can describe this is a pragmatic approach. in this case, in light of the mandates coming down, we get feedback we do not want small businesses to be unduly affected by the mandates. this is the second year we are bringing this factback, and we e narrowed this, because we represent some francisco and the businesses. this has the suspect we hope the commissioners would feel is beneficial to small businesses local interior -- locally.

commissioner riley: are we doing this already in san francisco? >> yes. >> this is a whole bay area of them are >> correct, -- this is the whole bay area? >> yes, this is nine counties, and the reason we are bringing this to the san francisco commission commodore employees are affected as well uas a competitive environment. san francisco and now residents are playing their part by offering these benefits, and it is only fair to spread these across the straits. -- state. we are trying to get this

addressed while meeting those mandates. gooby the you see any research o we can improve? >> absolutely, and we do not have any opposition formally filed on here. agaiwe did receive one, and it s the only formal opposition, of their concern was administrative costs, but we have also found the administration cost is for a minimal and can be done for free, and our office is willing to work and educates and get those your constituents and make

sure they understand it is done on do burden. they are already dealing with other counties, and that is still a cost benefit dealing with a payroll tax. >> it makes sense. perhaps we are trying to stay wide, but we are doing regional on this. nine counties. >> are you just asking for support democrats we are. we will go to transport -- are you just asking for support? >> we are. we are trying to give a broad support across the state. >> any other commissioner comments? seeing none, i am opening it up

for public comment. is there anyone here with public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i moved to support it. >> second. >> the roll call. >> on the commissioner to support -- [calling votes] commissioners, that motion passes, 6-0. good evenin >> thank you very much for your time. >> commissioners, you are on item number eight, discussion of possible action regarding senator feinstein's letter to me regarding this ability access

lawsuits. this is a discussion and possible action item. in your binder is the letter referenced as well as a letter in response, and i believe the director will take over from here. >> new developments since our last meeting. senator feinstein has said the directive to our state legislature to do something about predatory lawsuits, so we want to send a letter of thank you to her on behalf of the commission and the office, and as i have reported, i have been meeting with merchants to work on a proposed plan to come up with other solutions to the

weekend du-- that we can do, so what other things can we do to help small businesses while increasing our accessibility? i did meet with them last week, and we went through the letter of response said needs of the inspection, but there are some naive conclusions, because he is probably not in consultation with the california commission on disability, but also in consultation withi the specialit

institutes and also talking to small businesses about this, so i drafted a proposed response. good what i would like is for the commission to approve the of rage committee, which we will be discussing and the director -- the outreach committee, we will have a full response drafted, allow them to give final approval to this, because what i would like to do is send senator feins you letter and attached the response directed to state senator feinberg to it, so to have final

approval of that letter, and the letter i will make sure we have. i cannot do that, but it would come under the signature for both you and i've. >> this is great. i have got to thank you for doing this. >> we need to address this further, because even though i consider it a good step forward, i still feel like there is a lot of holes, and we need to continue to address this, and whether we do it through legislation or we suggest something ourselves, i think we

need to continue this discussion. >> i would like to get something written and submitted relatively soon to them, because there is high variability on the types of reports and suggestions. good eveninthere is still not ae that if they make a recommendation but another individuals may come along and challenge the determination and the fight but we have seen with lawsuits they are being filed in federal court, so we have seen one determination from the fourth circuit's where a judge made a determination of the

inspection is not relevant at the federal level, so if the individuals are filing in federal court, is the federal government is not going to recognize the state certified specialist determinations are readily achievable, it is a minor step to improvement, and is sold of loopholes -- is a loophole for these individuals. for as we are grateful for your drafting these for approval, so a motion to that affect. >> any other commissioner comments? do we have public comment? seeing none, do we have a

motion to support the lighter democrats are moved to that we support the letter and give approval to proceed. >> do we have a second in? >> second. >> thought will be out of reach approve obama -- for the outrage of approval -- outreach approval? [calling votes] >> 5 motion passes, 6-0. >> item #9, recommendation to the board of supervisors, waiver of temporary street occupancies thfee for small business week sidewalk sales.

this is for certain designated streets in the city and county of san francisco. commissioners, in your binder is the ordinance, a list of organizations participating, and a detailed breakdown of fees being waves. since she sponsored it on behalf of the office of small-business, the director will be introducing this item. good >> traditionally in the past we have haven' had what we call a citywide sidewalk sale, but we have had low response from the merchant corridors in terms of participation.

this is an organized effort to promote for small business week, so in meeting with many organizations back in december, they said they were more interested in having this debate who marked the events they are already doing, then working to create something, so we made the determination of this saturday the sidewalk sale will not create an official of the end as part of small business week, -- an official event of small business we felt we will support. there were merchant corridors of have come to utilize this as an opportunity to promote corridors and so wanted to be able to have it, so there is no reason to not have our office to

facilitate the waiver for merchant corridors, so for those who want to do this, we are facilitating this waiver as we always have through the same process of the board of supervisors, and we will just listen to the neighborhoods having an organized neighborhood merchant corridor promotional even stay, and we will let them tell us how they are going to market and promote to their neighborhood, so we will let them with it. this is something we do every single year for the city. the department cannot just unilaterally choose to waive

fees. they need to get approval to do so, and that is why this is before you, similar to what supervisor chiu did with the awnings. any time we waive the fee, it has to be approved during good -- in has to be approved. >> as this is something you do every year, is thorough way you would make it so you do not have to come back every year? >> we have to do it every year, up because the fee changes and also neighborhood change. a goowe actually have a couple f

neighborhoods but did not do it last year that are doing it this year. strikes i want to thank supervisor 0 olague. this is one of our biggest shopping days of the year. it is right before memorial day, and it drives a lot of people into the neighborhood, and it promotes community. it is becoming a pretty big saying, and i was pleased to see the market -- the merchant organizations, and i want to thank everybody for their work in this office for doing this. right now but we are not locked into having it be the saturday for small business week, it

allows the option to choose a saturday, preferably are round small business week, but if there is another time, it allows flexibility. >> any other commissioner comments? c. non, we have public comment. seeing no public comment, do we have a motion? >> i moved. >> second. [calling votes] >> the motion passes, 6-0.